K8NSpro PWR_Fan connector

Discussion in 'Gigabyte' started by jt3, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    Apologies for another fan connector question, but on this mbd there is a
    SYS_FAN connector (3-pole, #3 is sensing) and a PWR_FAN connector (located
    just above the IDE connectors and next to the ATX power connector) which has
    a 3-pole connector of which the #3 is NC, according to the manual, evidently
    meaning that the board cannot sense the fan speed when connected to this
    jack. However, both connectors are described as 'allows you to link with
    the cooling fan on the system case to lower the system temperature.' As if
    that wouldn't be obvious in any case.

    The question is, why is this connector (the PWR_FAN one) provided at all, if
    there is no speed regulation, as it is hard to see how it could be
    temperature regulated if there is no speed feedback from the fan, or am I
    missing something here?

    My Antec Sonata case has a non-sensing case fan with a connector to insert
    into the +12v of the hd drive connectors, so there'd be no controlling
    intended there. OTOH, there's a 3-pole connector from the Antec psu
    apparently intended for *some* fan connector, but it only has a gnd and a
    sensing lead, and so suggests its purpose is to monitor the psu fans with
    software. I understood that the psu has an internal sensor (perhaps load,
    not air temp?) (500W Smart Power 2), so I'm not certain about the monitoring
    aspect, esp. since there'd be no control by software.

    It seems so far that the plan should be to ignore the PWR_FAN connector
    (since it would merely power a fan at full speed, and nothing could be
    gained by using it with the connector from the psu, since #3 as well as #2
    would have no connection on one side or the other), use a 120mm sensing case
    fan on the SYS_FAN connector, and then another thermistor-controlled fan to
    help cool the hds; such a fan *could* be powered from the PWR_FAN connector,
    but there'd be no advantage to it, that I can see.

    Anyway, if anyone can improve my understanding of the intended function of
    the mbd PWR_FAN connector, or of the apparent sensing circuit from the psu,
    I'd certainly appreciate it.

    Thanks,
    Joe
     
    jt3, Dec 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jt3

    Paul Guest

    jt3 wrote:
    > Apologies for another fan connector question, but on this mbd there is a
    > SYS_FAN connector (3-pole, #3 is sensing) and a PWR_FAN connector (located
    > just above the IDE connectors and next to the ATX power connector) which has
    > a 3-pole connector of which the #3 is NC, according to the manual, evidently
    > meaning that the board cannot sense the fan speed when connected to this
    > jack. However, both connectors are described as 'allows you to link with
    > the cooling fan on the system case to lower the system temperature.' As if
    > that wouldn't be obvious in any case.
    >
    > The question is, why is this connector (the PWR_FAN one) provided at all, if
    > there is no speed regulation, as it is hard to see how it could be
    > temperature regulated if there is no speed feedback from the fan, or am I
    > missing something here?
    >
    > My Antec Sonata case has a non-sensing case fan with a connector to insert
    > into the +12v of the hd drive connectors, so there'd be no controlling
    > intended there. OTOH, there's a 3-pole connector from the Antec psu
    > apparently intended for *some* fan connector, but it only has a gnd and a
    > sensing lead, and so suggests its purpose is to monitor the psu fans with
    > software. I understood that the psu has an internal sensor (perhaps load,
    > not air temp?) (500W Smart Power 2), so I'm not certain about the monitoring
    > aspect, esp. since there'd be no control by software.
    >
    > It seems so far that the plan should be to ignore the PWR_FAN connector
    > (since it would merely power a fan at full speed, and nothing could be
    > gained by using it with the connector from the psu, since #3 as well as #2
    > would have no connection on one side or the other), use a 120mm sensing case
    > fan on the SYS_FAN connector, and then another thermistor-controlled fan to
    > help cool the hds; such a fan *could* be powered from the PWR_FAN connector,
    > but there'd be no advantage to it, that I can see.
    >
    > Anyway, if anyone can improve my understanding of the intended function of
    > the mbd PWR_FAN connector, or of the apparent sensing circuit from the psu,
    > I'd certainly appreciate it.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Joe
    >
    >


    Your board uses an IT8712 Super I/O chip with Hardware Monitor (iteusa.com).
    The chip has five fan channels. The pins are multiplexed, meaning there
    are more chip functions, than there are pins to support them. Because
    your motherboard has a Game Port, for example, that immediately
    eliminates two fan channels, leaving three. (Some of the pins on the Game
    Port header, can be programmed to control/monitor a fan, but the BIOS will
    have disabled their functioning as fan signals, and instead they function
    as Game Port signals.)

    Fan control can be done a number of different ways, and for different reasons.

    Fans are hardly ever speed controlled in the absolute sense. There was
    one Japanese product available, whose purpose was to monitor the RPM
    signal, and vary the voltage, so that the fan rotated at a constant
    speed. That eliminates the annoying up-and-down you get when there are
    tiny variations in the 12V from the power supply. Motherboards generally
    don't do that. Feedback=RPM, Control=variable_12V in that case. Other
    than that special third-party product, RPM is generally only checked to
    detect fan failure.

    Fans can be adjusted according to temperature. Temperatures to control
    include CPU_temperature and Case_temperature. Deluxe motherboards may
    seek to control both of those. Lesser motherboards may offer CPU_temperature
    control, or no control at all. Thus, a really cheap motherboard, simply
    offers a constant 12V on all fan headers.

    On top of that, the CPU fan may have a built-in function. The Intel
    retail fan, senses case_temperature, via a thermistor in the fan hub.
    The Intel intent, is "constant cooling effort". As the computer case air temp
    rises, it is harder to cool the CPU (as cooling ability is related to
    delta_T). The Intel fan speeds up, if the case gets warm. But since
    the Intel fan doesn't know what the CPU temperature is, the CPU temperature
    is still not "controlled" in that case. The Intel fan doesn't know what
    the CPU temperature is.

    Some motherboards offer to control the CPU fan for you. Their intent is to
    reduce noise, when the CPU is "cool enough'. Some products crank the fan
    speed, once the CPU goes over 50C. The voltage sent to the fan, may vary
    between 7V and 12V, and a "depth" setting determines how close to 7V
    it gets, when the CPU is below 50C. In that case Feedback=CPU_diode_temp,
    Control=variable_12V.

    A "Deluxe" motherboard may have a second fan header, with a transistor
    connected to 12V, just like on the CPU header. Feedback=Case_temp.
    Control=variable_12V. The BIOS routine (or optionally programs like
    SpeedFan from almico.com) can implement the control. The threshold in
    that case will be a lot lower, so the case fan will speed up at a
    relatively low measured value of case air temperature. You can connect
    a two wire fan, with no RPM signal, and the BIOS on that motherboard
    will still vary the 12V power signal, in response to the measured value
    of case_air_temperature. The RPM signal is not needed, and the main
    value of an RPM signal is for detecting a "dead fan".

    Now, for the neutered headers. It seems in the case of your motherboard,
    I only see two RPM signals being used, when it appears that three are
    easily available. But they may have needed to use one of the RPM signals
    for a GPIO (general purpose I/O) and that is why the third header is not
    monitored. Since they did pay the $0.03 for the pins, it wouldn't make
    sense not to connect the RPM sense pin on the hardware monitor interface,
    if the signal was available.

    If a fan header has +12V and GND, but no RPM, the intent is just to provide
    a source of power to the connected fan. This saves the user from buying an
    adapter cable to a Molex disk drive connector. The three pin header costs
    $0.03 or so to populate.

    If a header were to have RPM and GND, then the header would be for monitoring
    only. A typical situation might be a Power_Fan connector, where the PSU
    is already providing its own controlled 12V signal to its internal fan.
    The PSU maker takes the RPM signal, and sends it down to the motherboard. The
    connector on the end of the cable has three pins, but only the RPM wire and
    GND wire. The PSU basically sends the RPM signal, so it can be monitored.
    The PSU does not need the 12V from the motherboard, and so that wire is
    not installed on the PSU cable by the PSU maker.

    I've also owned a power supply, that had a thermistor, so you could monitor
    PSU internal temperature instead. That is a two pin connector, with two
    wires connected. Nominal resistance 10K ohms, beta=3435 (kinda a defacto
    standard for computer thermistors). That practice (PSU with temp readout)
    has died out, because it has been a few years since motherboards offered
    temp measurement for a user-provided probe. Temperature channels on the
    hardware monitor are tied up with CPU_diode_temp, case_temp, and maybe
    chipset_temp or VRM_temp.

    In summary, for your board:

    CPU_FAN GND, +12, Sense ("Smart fan" via CPU_diode_temp)
    Sys_FAN GND, +12, Sense (Not controlled, but monitored)
    Power_FAN GND, +12, No_Connect (Not controlled, not monitored, a source of power)
    NB_Fan GND, "Power" (Likely a 5V fan? I think that is what 2-pins is)

    Note that the labeling of fan header, is not an absolute. If you wanted to
    connect the connector from your power supply to the Sys_FAN connector,
    no one will be the wiser. That would allow it to be monitored, as long as
    it has an RPM signal on it (which is should). The Power_FAN header could be
    connected to your two wire case fan, since your case fan cannot be monitored
    in the first place. But if your motherboard was a "deluxe" type, where the
    case_temperature was controlled, then you wouldn't do that, and would
    connect the Sys_Fan to the case fan (because in that case, you want the
    variable 12V from the Sys_FAN header, to control the case fan, and the
    resulting computer case temperature).

    HTH,
    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    Thank you, Paul, for a most informative response; I believe you answered
    questions I didn't even realise I had asked, though I clearly did, by
    inference. In this respect, I should have realised that a feedback loop and
    servo mechanism involving speed sensing would be unlikely in such a
    setup--any servo mechanism necessary for temperature control would naturally
    be in software and would only involve a temperature sense, not speed.

    The original power supply (replaced because of failure) that came in the
    Antec Sonata case had a 'Fan Only" connector which would have controlled the
    case fan accordingly with the psu temp and fans, but the replacement, of
    which I wrote, doesn't have that, so the result has been increased fan
    noise.

    Although the suggestion you made of using the game port connector to control
    the case fan speed is attractive, I suspect that finding a disassembler, and
    applying myself to the BIOS code is more of a time investment than I am
    likely to make at this point, simply for aesthetic accommodation, and so, if
    I am to do anything on it, most probably I should install a
    thermistor-controlled case fan. The possible use of the game port *is*
    attractive, nevertheless. Somewhere, I have an old copy of Sourcer, but I'm
    sure it's 16-bit, and thus not very useful for this, so like so many things
    that attract, it will probably be quietly ignored.

    On another subject, you wouldn't by any chance know where I might find a
    copy of a data sheet for a TFK U 2550 B1 chip, would you? Almost any
    information would be a help. Telefunken seems to have gone the way of all
    flesh and creation thereof.

    Thank you very much for your time and help,
    Joe

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:ematin$j65$...
    > jt3 wrote:
    > > Apologies for another fan connector question, but on this mbd there is a
    > > SYS_FAN connector (3-pole, #3 is sensing) and a PWR_FAN connector

    (located
    > > just above the IDE connectors and next to the ATX power connector) which

    has
    > > a 3-pole connector of which the #3 is NC, according to the manual,

    evidently
    > > meaning that the board cannot sense the fan speed when connected to this
    > > jack. However, both connectors are described as 'allows you to link

    with
    > > the cooling fan on the system case to lower the system temperature.' As

    if
    > > that wouldn't be obvious in any case.
    > >
    > > The question is, why is this connector (the PWR_FAN one) provided at

    all, if
    > > there is no speed regulation, as it is hard to see how it could be
    > > temperature regulated if there is no speed feedback from the fan, or am

    I
    > > missing something here?
    > >
    > > My Antec Sonata case has a non-sensing case fan with a connector to

    insert
    > > into the +12v of the hd drive connectors, so there'd be no controlling
    > > intended there. OTOH, there's a 3-pole connector from the Antec psu
    > > apparently intended for *some* fan connector, but it only has a gnd and

    a
    > > sensing lead, and so suggests its purpose is to monitor the psu fans

    with
    > > software. I understood that the psu has an internal sensor (perhaps

    load,
    > > not air temp?) (500W Smart Power 2), so I'm not certain about the

    monitoring
    > > aspect, esp. since there'd be no control by software.
    > >
    > > It seems so far that the plan should be to ignore the PWR_FAN connector
    > > (since it would merely power a fan at full speed, and nothing could be
    > > gained by using it with the connector from the psu, since #3 as well as

    #2
    > > would have no connection on one side or the other), use a 120mm sensing

    case
    > > fan on the SYS_FAN connector, and then another thermistor-controlled fan

    to
    > > help cool the hds; such a fan *could* be powered from the PWR_FAN

    connector,
    > > but there'd be no advantage to it, that I can see.
    > >
    > > Anyway, if anyone can improve my understanding of the intended function

    of
    > > the mbd PWR_FAN connector, or of the apparent sensing circuit from the

    psu,
    > > I'd certainly appreciate it.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Joe
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Your board uses an IT8712 Super I/O chip with Hardware Monitor

    (iteusa.com).
    > The chip has five fan channels. The pins are multiplexed, meaning there
    > are more chip functions, than there are pins to support them. Because
    > your motherboard has a Game Port, for example, that immediately
    > eliminates two fan channels, leaving three. (Some of the pins on the Game
    > Port header, can be programmed to control/monitor a fan, but the BIOS will
    > have disabled their functioning as fan signals, and instead they function
    > as Game Port signals.)
    >
    > Fan control can be done a number of different ways, and for different

    reasons.
    >
    > Fans are hardly ever speed controlled in the absolute sense. There was
    > one Japanese product available, whose purpose was to monitor the RPM
    > signal, and vary the voltage, so that the fan rotated at a constant
    > speed. That eliminates the annoying up-and-down you get when there are
    > tiny variations in the 12V from the power supply. Motherboards generally
    > don't do that. Feedback=RPM, Control=variable_12V in that case. Other
    > than that special third-party product, RPM is generally only checked to
    > detect fan failure.
    >
    > Fans can be adjusted according to temperature. Temperatures to control
    > include CPU_temperature and Case_temperature. Deluxe motherboards may
    > seek to control both of those. Lesser motherboards may offer

    CPU_temperature
    > control, or no control at all. Thus, a really cheap motherboard, simply
    > offers a constant 12V on all fan headers.
    >
    > On top of that, the CPU fan may have a built-in function. The Intel
    > retail fan, senses case_temperature, via a thermistor in the fan hub.
    > The Intel intent, is "constant cooling effort". As the computer case air

    temp
    > rises, it is harder to cool the CPU (as cooling ability is related to
    > delta_T). The Intel fan speeds up, if the case gets warm. But since
    > the Intel fan doesn't know what the CPU temperature is, the CPU

    temperature
    > is still not "controlled" in that case. The Intel fan doesn't know what
    > the CPU temperature is.
    >
    > Some motherboards offer to control the CPU fan for you. Their intent is to
    > reduce noise, when the CPU is "cool enough'. Some products crank the fan
    > speed, once the CPU goes over 50C. The voltage sent to the fan, may vary
    > between 7V and 12V, and a "depth" setting determines how close to 7V
    > it gets, when the CPU is below 50C. In that case Feedback=CPU_diode_temp,
    > Control=variable_12V.
    >
    > A "Deluxe" motherboard may have a second fan header, with a transistor
    > connected to 12V, just like on the CPU header. Feedback=Case_temp.
    > Control=variable_12V. The BIOS routine (or optionally programs like
    > SpeedFan from almico.com) can implement the control. The threshold in
    > that case will be a lot lower, so the case fan will speed up at a
    > relatively low measured value of case air temperature. You can connect
    > a two wire fan, with no RPM signal, and the BIOS on that motherboard
    > will still vary the 12V power signal, in response to the measured value
    > of case_air_temperature. The RPM signal is not needed, and the main
    > value of an RPM signal is for detecting a "dead fan".
    >
    > Now, for the neutered headers. It seems in the case of your motherboard,
    > I only see two RPM signals being used, when it appears that three are
    > easily available. But they may have needed to use one of the RPM signals
    > for a GPIO (general purpose I/O) and that is why the third header is not
    > monitored. Since they did pay the $0.03 for the pins, it wouldn't make
    > sense not to connect the RPM sense pin on the hardware monitor interface,
    > if the signal was available.
    >
    > If a fan header has +12V and GND, but no RPM, the intent is just to

    provide
    > a source of power to the connected fan. This saves the user from buying an
    > adapter cable to a Molex disk drive connector. The three pin header costs
    > $0.03 or so to populate.
    >
    > If a header were to have RPM and GND, then the header would be for

    monitoring
    > only. A typical situation might be a Power_Fan connector, where the PSU
    > is already providing its own controlled 12V signal to its internal fan.
    > The PSU maker takes the RPM signal, and sends it down to the motherboard.

    The
    > connector on the end of the cable has three pins, but only the RPM wire

    and
    > GND wire. The PSU basically sends the RPM signal, so it can be monitored.
    > The PSU does not need the 12V from the motherboard, and so that wire is
    > not installed on the PSU cable by the PSU maker.
    >
    > I've also owned a power supply, that had a thermistor, so you could

    monitor
    > PSU internal temperature instead. That is a two pin connector, with two
    > wires connected. Nominal resistance 10K ohms, beta=3435 (kinda a defacto
    > standard for computer thermistors). That practice (PSU with temp readout)
    > has died out, because it has been a few years since motherboards offered
    > temp measurement for a user-provided probe. Temperature channels on the
    > hardware monitor are tied up with CPU_diode_temp, case_temp, and maybe
    > chipset_temp or VRM_temp.
    >
    > In summary, for your board:
    >
    > CPU_FAN GND, +12, Sense ("Smart fan" via CPU_diode_temp)
    > Sys_FAN GND, +12, Sense (Not controlled, but monitored)
    > Power_FAN GND, +12, No_Connect (Not controlled, not monitored, a source

    of power)
    > NB_Fan GND, "Power" (Likely a 5V fan? I think that is what

    2-pins is)
    >
    > Note that the labeling of fan header, is not an absolute. If you wanted to
    > connect the connector from your power supply to the Sys_FAN connector,
    > no one will be the wiser. That would allow it to be monitored, as long as
    > it has an RPM signal on it (which is should). The Power_FAN header could

    be
    > connected to your two wire case fan, since your case fan cannot be

    monitored
    > in the first place. But if your motherboard was a "deluxe" type, where the
    > case_temperature was controlled, then you wouldn't do that, and would
    > connect the Sys_Fan to the case fan (because in that case, you want the
    > variable 12V from the Sys_FAN header, to control the case fan, and the
    > resulting computer case temperature).
    >
    > HTH,
    > Paul
     
    jt3, Dec 20, 2006
    #3
  4. jt3

    Paul Guest

    jt3 wrote:
    > Thank you, Paul, for a most informative response; I believe you answered
    > questions I didn't even realise I had asked, though I clearly did, by
    > inference. In this respect, I should have realised that a feedback loop and
    > servo mechanism involving speed sensing would be unlikely in such a
    > setup--any servo mechanism necessary for temperature control would naturally
    > be in software and would only involve a temperature sense, not speed.
    >
    > The original power supply (replaced because of failure) that came in the
    > Antec Sonata case had a 'Fan Only" connector which would have controlled the
    > case fan accordingly with the psu temp and fans, but the replacement, of
    > which I wrote, doesn't have that, so the result has been increased fan
    > noise.
    >
    > Although the suggestion you made of using the game port connector to control
    > the case fan speed is attractive, I suspect that finding a disassembler, and
    > applying myself to the BIOS code is more of a time investment than I am
    > likely to make at this point, simply for aesthetic accommodation, and so, if
    > I am to do anything on it, most probably I should install a
    > thermistor-controlled case fan. The possible use of the game port *is*
    > attractive, nevertheless. Somewhere, I have an old copy of Sourcer, but I'm
    > sure it's 16-bit, and thus not very useful for this, so like so many things
    > that attract, it will probably be quietly ignored.
    >
    > On another subject, you wouldn't by any chance know where I might find a
    > copy of a data sheet for a TFK U 2550 B1 chip, would you? Almost any
    > information would be a help. Telefunken seems to have gone the way of all
    > flesh and creation thereof.
    >
    > Thank you very much for your time and help,
    > Joe
    >


    You can get an assembly that fits a 5 1/4" drive tray, called a fan
    rheobus. Another concept, is a Zalman Fanmate II, which is a single
    channel fan adjustment. I have an earlier version of the Fanmate,
    and I use it on a couple fans. This one sounds like it isn't
    infinitely variable any more, but more like a three position switch.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp?item=N82E16835118217

    My point about the "Game Port", is if you find a Game Port on the motherboard,
    then for all practical purposes, you are limited to three fan channels. I
    wasn't proposing you actually interface to the pins :) You actually need
    a little bit of interface circuitry, to convert the 12V pulses from the fan,
    to 5V levels for the chip.

    This article, suggests the Telefunken name has been "'round the block".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefunken

    I found a reference, to Vishay acquiring part of Temic, who in turn
    acquired Telefunken. Atmel may have got part of Temic as well.
    And one reference to used parts, suggesting a date code of 1993. Which
    means the part could have been around for a while. But I don't see any
    sign of a datasheet.

    You can see how Temic modified a Telefunken datasheet here:
    www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets/temic/UAA145.PDF

    (Close but no cigar...)
    http://www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets/Prelco Temic Data Sheets/

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 21, 2006
    #4
  5. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    Thanks, again, for your time and effort. There are such fans, although most
    of them *are* three-speed models now; Antec sells the 'Tri-cool' which is
    exactly that. They also sell their 'Smart-Cool' model, which is
    thermistor-regulated:

    http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=75012

    CompUSA also used to sell a rebranded Chinese fan (of course, that's what
    the Antec is, also) SKU 299936, but they seem to be discontinuing it. I
    still see the 80 mm version of the Antec in stores, occasionally. The Antec
    looks like a better fan, though I haven't taken one apart yet, I have taken
    one of the CompUSA ones apart, and the Antecs *look* better from what I can
    see. Don't know if I can find one in any store locally, but I can always
    try ordering directly from Antec. Some reluctance there, since I've had two
    PSUs of theirs fail on me, but whenever one deals with outfits that contract
    out their assemblies as they do, it's a roll of the bones, in a way.

    Yes, I noticed some of that same stuff when I was Googling for the chip some
    time back. What was enticing, though, was some reference to Chinese firms
    that were apparently making versions of the chip for replacement purposes;
    no further info, though. And Google referenced that same list (Prelco) of
    data sheets, suggesting that it had once listed one for that chip, even
    though I couldn't find it then. So, what I was hoping for was that someone
    might happen to have kept a copy of it. My interest in it involves a no
    longer available locking controller for a car, ca. 1991. No idea at all
    whether that chip is the problem, but as it was an important factor in
    working out the schematic, I was trying for that. As you may guess, I'm
    somewhat ill-advisedly inclined to pursue things more involved than amenable
    to simple solutions :)

    Thanks again for your efforts!

    Joe

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:emcpan$9j9$...
    >
    > You can get an assembly that fits a 5 1/4" drive tray, called a fan
    > rheobus. Another concept, is a Zalman Fanmate II, which is a single
    > channel fan adjustment. I have an earlier version of the Fanmate,
    > and I use it on a couple fans. This one sounds like it isn't
    > infinitely variable any more, but more like a three position switch.
    >
    > http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp?item=N82E16835118217
    >
    > My point about the "Game Port", is if you find a Game Port on the

    motherboard,
    > then for all practical purposes, you are limited to three fan channels. I
    > wasn't proposing you actually interface to the pins :) You actually need
    > a little bit of interface circuitry, to convert the 12V pulses from the

    fan,
    > to 5V levels for the chip.
    >
    > This article, suggests the Telefunken name has been "'round the block".
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telefunken
    >
    > I found a reference, to Vishay acquiring part of Temic, who in turn
    > acquired Telefunken. Atmel may have got part of Temic as well.
    > And one reference to used parts, suggesting a date code of 1993. Which
    > means the part could have been around for a while. But I don't see any
    > sign of a datasheet.
    >
    > You can see how Temic modified a Telefunken datasheet here:
    > www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets/temic/UAA145.PDF
    >
    > (Close but no cigar...)
    > http://www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets/Prelco Temic Data Sheets/
    >
    > Paul
     
    jt3, Dec 21, 2006
    #5
  6. jt3

    Paul Guest

    jt3 wrote:
    > Thanks, again, for your time and effort. There are such fans, although most
    > of them *are* three-speed models now; Antec sells the 'Tri-cool' which is
    > exactly that. They also sell their 'Smart-Cool' model, which is
    > thermistor-regulated:
    >
    > http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=75012
    >
    > CompUSA also used to sell a rebranded Chinese fan (of course, that's what
    > the Antec is, also) SKU 299936, but they seem to be discontinuing it. I
    > still see the 80 mm version of the Antec in stores, occasionally. The Antec
    > looks like a better fan, though I haven't taken one apart yet, I have taken
    > one of the CompUSA ones apart, and the Antecs *look* better from what I can
    > see. Don't know if I can find one in any store locally, but I can always
    > try ordering directly from Antec. Some reluctance there, since I've had two
    > PSUs of theirs fail on me, but whenever one deals with outfits that contract
    > out their assemblies as they do, it's a roll of the bones, in a way.
    >
    > Yes, I noticed some of that same stuff when I was Googling for the chip some
    > time back. What was enticing, though, was some reference to Chinese firms
    > that were apparently making versions of the chip for replacement purposes;
    > no further info, though. And Google referenced that same list (Prelco) of
    > data sheets, suggesting that it had once listed one for that chip, even
    > though I couldn't find it then. So, what I was hoping for was that someone
    > might happen to have kept a copy of it. My interest in it involves a no
    > longer available locking controller for a car, ca. 1991. No idea at all
    > whether that chip is the problem, but as it was an important factor in
    > working out the schematic, I was trying for that. As you may guess, I'm
    > somewhat ill-advisedly inclined to pursue things more involved than amenable
    > to simple solutions :)
    >
    > Thanks again for your efforts!
    >
    > Joe


    If you still have the link returned by Google, you can check
    the web.archive.org site. I already checked for telefunken.de
    and didn't get anything of value. The web.archive.org site
    adds a "fourth dimension" to the web.

    http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets

    It is possible that "Telefunken automotive" ended up here. This
    web site is a dead loss, in terms of information content.

    http://www.conti-online.com/generat...locations_europe_en/budapest_location_en.html

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 21, 2006
    #6
  7. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:emdrbg$ii5$...
    <snip>
    > If you still have the link returned by Google, you can check
    > the web.archive.org site. I already checked for telefunken.de
    > and didn't get anything of value. The web.archive.org site
    > adds a "fourth dimension" to the web.
    >
    > http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets
    >
    > It is possible that "Telefunken automotive" ended up here. This
    > web site is a dead loss, in terms of information content.
    >
    >

    http://www.conti-online.com/generat...locations_europe_en/budapest_location_en.html
    >
    > Paul


    Thanks for the web.archive.org link; I shall find that useful in the future.
    Unfortunately, I didn't keep the prelcoparts Google link, so only slogging
    will tell.

    I see what you mean about the second one. I had wondered what happened to
    Alfred Teves GmbH (ATE) and now I see. A collection of industrial merger
    leftovers, it seems, and pretty much just pr, no info. Too bad, but all too
    common.

    Thanks again,
    Joe
     
    jt3, Dec 21, 2006
    #7
  8. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    Thought you might be interested--empirically it turns out that the board
    does *not* report the temp for the chipset; instead, it's CPU, SYS-FAN, and,
    get this, PWR_FAN, this in spite of explicitly indicating in the manual that
    PWR_FAN has NC on the sense line. So much for the logical inference, to say
    nothing of documentation!

    Currently running Prime95 trying to discover why machine arbitrarily shuts
    down, no error in system logfile. Original Antec 380W psu in the Sonata
    case suspected, tried new Antec 500W SmartPower; powered up, shut down 10
    seconds after completely booted and running, and wouldn't restart. Returned
    to the 380, couldn't get it to shut down again, put 500 in, works fine,
    apparently. Thus further checks. Passed nearly a week of Memtest86
    earlier. This was a mbd that wouldn't run reliably from the word go, out of
    the box. Finally after chasing my tail for a couple of months, it got
    enough worse, that I could press my case for suspected bad caps, RMA'd the
    board to GigaByte; they returned it with *every* electrolytic apparently
    replaced, so far as I could tell visually, and it seemed to run. Had
    trouble with XP, finally decided it was sufficiently corrupt to warrant
    reinstallation, did so, and, except for this strange and occasional
    shutdown, it seems more or less ok, if you don't mind that oxymoron. It
    doesn't benchmark on Everest quite as well as it should, but after this
    history, I can't be too picky.

    Joe

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:emdrbg$ii5$...
    > jt3 wrote:
    > > Thanks, again, for your time and effort. There are such fans, although

    most
    > > of them *are* three-speed models now; Antec sells the 'Tri-cool' which

    is
    > > exactly that. They also sell their 'Smart-Cool' model, which is
    > > thermistor-regulated:
    > >
    > > http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=75012
    > >
    > > CompUSA also used to sell a rebranded Chinese fan (of course, that's

    what
    > > the Antec is, also) SKU 299936, but they seem to be discontinuing it. I
    > > still see the 80 mm version of the Antec in stores, occasionally. The

    Antec
    > > looks like a better fan, though I haven't taken one apart yet, I have

    taken
    > > one of the CompUSA ones apart, and the Antecs *look* better from what I

    can
    > > see. Don't know if I can find one in any store locally, but I can

    always
    > > try ordering directly from Antec. Some reluctance there, since I've had

    two
    > > PSUs of theirs fail on me, but whenever one deals with outfits that

    contract
    > > out their assemblies as they do, it's a roll of the bones, in a way.
    > >
    > > Yes, I noticed some of that same stuff when I was Googling for the chip

    some
    > > time back. What was enticing, though, was some reference to Chinese

    firms
    > > that were apparently making versions of the chip for replacement

    purposes;
    > > no further info, though. And Google referenced that same list (Prelco)

    of
    > > data sheets, suggesting that it had once listed one for that chip, even
    > > though I couldn't find it then. So, what I was hoping for was that

    someone
    > > might happen to have kept a copy of it. My interest in it involves a no
    > > longer available locking controller for a car, ca. 1991. No idea at all
    > > whether that chip is the problem, but as it was an important factor in
    > > working out the schematic, I was trying for that. As you may guess, I'm
    > > somewhat ill-advisedly inclined to pursue things more involved than

    amenable
    > > to simple solutions :)
    > >
    > > Thanks again for your efforts!
    > >
    > > Joe

    >
    > If you still have the link returned by Google, you can check
    > the web.archive.org site. I already checked for telefunken.de
    > and didn't get anything of value. The web.archive.org site
    > adds a "fourth dimension" to the web.
    >
    > http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.prelcoparts.com/datasheets
    >
    > It is possible that "Telefunken automotive" ended up here. This
    > web site is a dead loss, in terms of information content.
    >
    >

    http://www.conti-online.com/generat...locations_europe_en/budapest_location_en.html
    >
    > Paul
     
    jt3, Dec 25, 2006
    #8
  9. jt3

    Paul Guest

    jt3 wrote:
    > Thought you might be interested--empirically it turns out that the board
    > does *not* report the temp for the chipset; instead, it's CPU, SYS-FAN, and,
    > get this, PWR_FAN, this in spite of explicitly indicating in the manual that
    > PWR_FAN has NC on the sense line. So much for the logical inference, to say
    > nothing of documentation!
    >
    > Currently running Prime95 trying to discover why machine arbitrarily shuts
    > down, no error in system logfile. Original Antec 380W psu in the Sonata
    > case suspected, tried new Antec 500W SmartPower; powered up, shut down 10
    > seconds after completely booted and running, and wouldn't restart. Returned
    > to the 380, couldn't get it to shut down again, put 500 in, works fine,
    > apparently. Thus further checks. Passed nearly a week of Memtest86
    > earlier. This was a mbd that wouldn't run reliably from the word go, out of
    > the box. Finally after chasing my tail for a couple of months, it got
    > enough worse, that I could press my case for suspected bad caps, RMA'd the
    > board to GigaByte; they returned it with *every* electrolytic apparently
    > replaced, so far as I could tell visually, and it seemed to run. Had
    > trouble with XP, finally decided it was sufficiently corrupt to warrant
    > reinstallation, did so, and, except for this strange and occasional
    > shutdown, it seems more or less ok, if you don't mind that oxymoron. It
    > doesn't benchmark on Everest quite as well as it should, but after this
    > history, I can't be too picky.
    >
    > Joe
    >


    Well, at least that makes more sense. If there were three available fan
    monitoring channels, they might as well have connected them up.

    An arbitrary shutdown, could be THERMTRIP. But you would hope that
    monitoring the CPU temperature, would give you some indication it was
    about to happen. Do you have a temp monitoring utility that runs
    in Windows ? THERMTRIP is a signal that comes out of modern processors,
    and is a shutdown signal to the motherboard. There would be no log
    generated, if the signal is used, as shutdown is immediate, and is
    not based on interrupts etc.

    Prime95 used to have options for various sizes of FFTs. If you use
    small FFTs in the test, the test can basically run in the processor
    cache. That has the potential to make the processor as hot as possible.
    Running with mixed or larger FFTs, is what gives the system memory
    a workout. If you notice the shutdowns correlate with Prime95 using
    small FFTs, then it could be some temperature effect. I'd have a look
    at the heatsink alignment, and perhaps at some point, disassemble the
    heatsink assembly and apply fresh thermal paste. A thin layer, which
    forces out any air gap, is what you want.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 25, 2006
    #9
  10. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:emo9m9$r7q$...
    <snip >
    >
    > Well, at least that makes more sense. If there were three available fan
    > monitoring channels, they might as well have connected them up.
    >
    > An arbitrary shutdown, could be THERMTRIP. But you would hope that
    > monitoring the CPU temperature, would give you some indication it was
    > about to happen. Do you have a temp monitoring utility that runs
    > in Windows ? THERMTRIP is a signal that comes out of modern processors,
    > and is a shutdown signal to the motherboard. There would be no log
    > generated, if the signal is used, as shutdown is immediate, and is
    > not based on interrupts etc.
    >
    > Prime95 used to have options for various sizes of FFTs. If you use
    > small FFTs in the test, the test can basically run in the processor
    > cache. That has the potential to make the processor as hot as possible.
    > Running with mixed or larger FFTs, is what gives the system memory
    > a workout. If you notice the shutdowns correlate with Prime95 using
    > small FFTs, then it could be some temperature effect. I'd have a look
    > at the heatsink alignment, and perhaps at some point, disassemble the
    > heatsink assembly and apply fresh thermal paste. A thin layer, which
    > forces out any air gap, is what you want.
    >
    > Paul


    Yes, I've been using the GigaByte monitoring utility, about which I have
    some other concerns, viz., what accuracy can one expect from the voltage
    readings? The numbers suggest a precision of 0.001 V, which I suspect. The
    reason I'm curious is that it reported the core voltage high--~1.58 V while
    the 12 V is about 12.23-12.3 V. The 3.3 comes in at about 3.24-3.26. I
    adjusted the core down to 1.51. One of the reasons I suspect the precision
    of the reporting is that the 12 stays mostly at 12.23 and hops briefly to
    12.30 every so often, probably no more than 5% of the time. The 3.3 jumps
    approximately evenly between the two values. The core is steady at 1.51
    under load (Prime95). These are all taken during the Prime95 run which has
    now been running about 28 hours. I chose the option which gave me a mix of
    tests, without paying much attention to the nature of the mix.

    Your suggestion about the thermal paste is one I take seriously. In the
    initial installation, I used the 'processor in a box' package as it was sold
    to me.

    There wasn't much chance for error in that, but even there I had trouble,
    for the first thing I noticed as I started running the machine (prior to
    installing XP--this was over 2 years ago, of course) was dangerously high
    reported temperatures (BIOS), which induced me to purchase the Zalman
    cooler, as the dealer could offer no alternative.

    This CPU appeared to be running at 70 deg C just idling in the BIOS screen.
    Try as I might, nothing seemed to lower the temperature. I purchased Arctic
    Silver, applied scrupulosly according to their directions, using a razor
    blade to spread it (rather than putting a small quantity in the center of
    the heat spreader and forcing it uniformly out upon application of the heat
    sink). I never liked that method of application, even though they (Arctic
    Silver) asserted it as the proper and only way.

    However, I shortly afterwards found that the temperature reading problem
    was in the microcode of the CPU, or at least the way the BIOS (Award) was
    reading the CPU sensor, and a later BIOS update changed the whole picture,
    and totally removed any reading excesses. The initial installation of XP
    was fraught with hang-ups, blue screen type, and every sort of thing that
    makes more sense in light of the motherboard's subsequent history. But
    since that time, the CPU has been reinstalled twice, using the same method
    as they recommended, so I don't have great confidence in it. The only thing
    arguing against it, that I can see, is that, so far it has stayed
    rock-steady at 34C all through Prime95, and the 4 times it quit with the 380
    W psu, only one was any farther than, say 10 minutes from boot, and this is
    all at idle. It has never quit while trying to do anything with it. The
    stoppage with the 500W psu, is another matter altogether, since it wouldn't
    even turn on afterwards. I only tried turning it on, say, over a 1/2 hour
    period, before pulling it apart and then putting the 380 back in. But it
    wouldn't even light the LED, which is why I was so sure it was the psu. But
    now, that same psu has been running longer than all its time before, and
    under Prime95, even if it isn't the heaviest possible load, without so much
    as a burp. Shortly, it will have run longer than it did with the 380 since
    the XP reinstallation. Since I am well into doing nearly everything over
    that I have done on the machine for about the fourth time, pulling the cpu
    cooler out and reinstalling it shouldn't be so bad, but the Zalman is a mess
    in its installation. Since it has been a while (September) since the board
    came back the irritation should be dulled, but I find myself ever more
    inclined to throw the machine into the middle of rush-hour traffic. It
    would be nice if I could just get the thing to stop again as it seemed to
    want to do a couple of days ago--half of me wants to believe it has 'gotten
    well' while the less credulous half of me knows that doesn't happen.

    I'll post back to the thread when I've got any results worth reporting.

    Thank you very much for your time and efforts,

    Joe
     
    jt3, Dec 26, 2006
    #10
  11. jt3

    Paul Guest

    jt3 wrote:
    >
    > Yes, I've been using the GigaByte monitoring utility, about which I have
    > some other concerns, viz., what accuracy can one expect from the voltage
    > readings? The numbers suggest a precision of 0.001 V, which I suspect. The
    > reason I'm curious is that it reported the core voltage high--~1.58 V while
    > the 12 V is about 12.23-12.3 V. The 3.3 comes in at about 3.24-3.26. I
    > adjusted the core down to 1.51. One of the reasons I suspect the precision
    > of the reporting is that the 12 stays mostly at 12.23 and hops briefly to
    > 12.30 every so often, probably no more than 5% of the time. The 3.3 jumps
    > approximately evenly between the two values. The core is steady at 1.51
    > under load (Prime95). These are all taken during the Prime95 run which has
    > now been running about 28 hours. I chose the option which gave me a mix of
    > tests, without paying much attention to the nature of the mix.


    If you have a look at the motherboard, you may be able to read the part
    number off the chip that does the Super I/O and hardware monitor function.

    A typical chip has an 8 bit ADC, with a full scale reading of 4.096V.
    Doing the math, 4.096 divided by 256 values (8 bit ADC) gives a base
    resolution of 0.016V . But, when a hardware program reads the values,
    sometimes averaging is used, which will change the apparent step size
    of the number stream. In any case, the resolution is not 0.001.
    And in the case of voltages higher than 4.096V, the input to the
    monitor is scaled with a resistor divider, and that scaling again
    changes the step size the user sees (i.e. bigger steps). Basically
    256 values spread over 12V, for the 12V rail.

    Any ADC needs a reference voltage of some sort. Some measurements are
    ratiometric, which means the same reference voltage feeds the sensor,
    as feeds the ADC. A ratiometric measurement, removes the 1 or 2%
    tolerance of whatever they are using for a reference voltage. Power
    supply readings are not ratiometric, which means they could be off
    by 1-2%, as well as the resolution limit of 16 millivolts, as well
    as the tolerance of any scaling resistors. Temperature readings are
    even more complicated, as some chips now use an internal lookup
    table, to map from voltage to temperature, and that mapping is not a
    linear function. It would have been better if they stuck with
    reading the temp as a voltage, as then you could look at the
    raw values and do your own analysis. Not that these details
    are important or anything...

    Treat the measurements as pretty crappy, unless the values make
    you happy :) And remember, that for BIOS readouts at least, some
    BIOS were known to apply an offset to the measured value, meaning
    even more voodoo at work. (That was typically done, when temp was
    measured in the CPU socket area, with a thermistor.)

    >
    > Your suggestion about the thermal paste is one I take seriously. In the
    > initial installation, I used the 'processor in a box' package as it was sold
    > to me.
    >
    > There wasn't much chance for error in that, but even there I had trouble,
    > for the first thing I noticed as I started running the machine (prior to
    > installing XP--this was over 2 years ago, of course) was dangerously high
    > reported temperatures (BIOS), which induced me to purchase the Zalman
    > cooler, as the dealer could offer no alternative.
    >
    > This CPU appeared to be running at 70 deg C just idling in the BIOS screen.
    > Try as I might, nothing seemed to lower the temperature. I purchased Arctic
    > Silver, applied scrupulosly according to their directions, using a razor
    > blade to spread it (rather than putting a small quantity in the center of
    > the heat spreader and forcing it uniformly out upon application of the heat
    > sink). I never liked that method of application, even though they (Arctic
    > Silver) asserted it as the proper and only way.
    >
    > However, I shortly afterwards found that the temperature reading problem
    > was in the microcode of the CPU, or at least the way the BIOS (Award) was
    > reading the CPU sensor, and a later BIOS update changed the whole picture,
    > and totally removed any reading excesses. The initial installation of XP
    > was fraught with hang-ups, blue screen type, and every sort of thing that
    > makes more sense in light of the motherboard's subsequent history. But
    > since that time, the CPU has been reinstalled twice, using the same method
    > as they recommended, so I don't have great confidence in it. The only thing
    > arguing against it, that I can see, is that, so far it has stayed
    > rock-steady at 34C all through Prime95, and the 4 times it quit with the 380
    > W psu, only one was any farther than, say 10 minutes from boot, and this is
    > all at idle. It has never quit while trying to do anything with it. The
    > stoppage with the 500W psu, is another matter altogether, since it wouldn't
    > even turn on afterwards. I only tried turning it on, say, over a 1/2 hour
    > period, before pulling it apart and then putting the 380 back in. But it
    > wouldn't even light the LED, which is why I was so sure it was the psu. But
    > now, that same psu has been running longer than all its time before, and
    > under Prime95, even if it isn't the heaviest possible load, without so much
    > as a burp. Shortly, it will have run longer than it did with the 380 since
    > the XP reinstallation. Since I am well into doing nearly everything over
    > that I have done on the machine for about the fourth time, pulling the cpu
    > cooler out and reinstalling it shouldn't be so bad, but the Zalman is a mess
    > in its installation. Since it has been a while (September) since the board
    > came back the irritation should be dulled, but I find myself ever more
    > inclined to throw the machine into the middle of rush-hour traffic. It
    > would be nice if I could just get the thing to stop again as it seemed to
    > want to do a couple of days ago--half of me wants to believe it has 'gotten
    > well' while the less credulous half of me knows that doesn't happen.


    The fact that you've applied paste multiple times, tells me you've had
    enough practice. I asked the question, because there are a few people out
    there, who feel a crooked heatsink, or a heatsink installed dry, makes
    sense. So I have to ask questions, to see if they are aware of what
    they're doing.

    The "dot in the center" approach to paste, should be fine if the
    metal has been "primed" with paste at least once. The idea is to
    force all the air out, so if the metal was primed, there should be
    less room for air. I spread mine with an edge, to reduce the need to
    "squash" it. And I use a bit more than the minimum quantity, as I
    like to see a little bit wet the edge of the joint. If the motherboard
    is outside the case, I can look between the heatsink and CPU, to see
    if any paste is visible in the joint between them.

    I would hope the temps rise a bit when you Prime. If the temp doesn't
    budge, maybe the sensors are mislabelled.

    When you see a power supply sensitivity, it can be that the power supply
    is too small for the system. You can calculate/estimate the power consumption
    and work that out. The Antec supplies, due to their flexible output arrangement
    (load any single rail as heavy as you want), should reduce the probability
    of flaky behavior. At least for their Truepower series. If I saw some
    flakiness, I'd reach from my clamp-on DC ammeter, and measure how much
    power is actually being drawn. But gadgets like that are too expensive
    for home DIY use. My clamp-on meter, is the most expensive meter I own,
    and the rest are cheap $30 to $100 multimeters.

    When a power supply won't turn on afterwards, that is called "latch-off".
    A supply which thinks it has suffered an overload, can insist that the
    user flip the switch on the back, to reset the power supply. The Vcore
    on some motherboards also can feature latch-off, and they won't clear
    their latched state, even if you press reset. Flipping the switch on
    the PSU may be enough to clear a fault like that too. If a supply
    is not designed properly, it may be overly sensitive to loading,
    cutting out and latching off at random.

    Some previous generation motherboards, use "put-put" mode for Vcore.
    What that means, is if Vcore detects an overload, the Vcore circuit
    may continue to try to start afterwards. The circuit gets a bit warm,
    and the nice thing is, it doesn't latch off. Generally, latch-off
    is useful for circuits where the designers want to protect things to
    the max extent possible, meaning fewer fires/smoke etc. But the
    nuisance of having to flip the switch or unplug, to clear the latch.

    >
    > I'll post back to the thread when I've got any results worth reporting.
    >
    > Thank you very much for your time and efforts,
    >
    > Joe
    >


    What most people don't think about, is it is a miracle that this stuff
    works in the first place. That is why I'm not surprised when a computer
    works flaky. The flakiness in computers only really started to disappear,
    once good design methods, spread from engineer to engineer. There was
    a time, when some companies simply didn't understand how to build stuff.
    Now, companies can make "Xerox copies" of reference designs, and know
    very little of what they're building. Kinda useful in the video
    card industry. And to a much lesser extent with motherboards.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Dec 27, 2006
    #11
  12. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:emu8i2$kk3$...
    > jt3 wrote:
    > >
    > > Yes, I've been using the GigaByte monitoring utility, about which I have


    <snip>

    > nuisance of having to flip the switch or unplug, to clear the latch.
    >
    > >
    > > I'll post back to the thread when I've got any results worth reporting.
    > >
    > > Thank you very much for your time and efforts,
    > >
    > > Joe
    > >

    >
    > What most people don't think about, is it is a miracle that this stuff
    > works in the first place. That is why I'm not surprised when a computer
    > works flaky. The flakiness in computers only really started to disappear,
    > once good design methods, spread from engineer to engineer. There was
    > a time, when some companies simply didn't understand how to build stuff.
    > Now, companies can make "Xerox copies" of reference designs, and know
    > very little of what they're building. Kinda useful in the video
    > card industry. And to a much lesser extent with motherboards.
    >
    > Paul


    Should you still be monitoring this thread, I'm posting back, not because I
    have any noteworthy info, but more, the absence of it :)
    The machine has been working just fine ever since, with virtually no hiccups
    of any sort. Works on either power supply, seemingly just fine. The only
    questionable occurrence has been today when the GigaByte monitor wouldn't
    give a reasonable reading--giving trash like CPU temp=96 deg C, fan speed
    46,000 rpm, etc. When I would try to check any further, XP would tell me
    that it had to close it down, and would I like to send a message to MS? I
    love that one.
    Anyhow, rebooting the machine seemed to fix that, though it is a puzzle,
    since I would presume it reads it through their version of the Award BIOS,
    and that seems passing strange, especially since the app was trying to
    report battery voltage as well (that was about 46,000 volts, as well!) which
    was not normal, as well as not reporting a number of the normal parameters.
    Still, nothing to be especially worried about, at least, not yet!

    Joe
     
    jt3, Feb 14, 2007
    #12
  13. jt3

    Paul Guest

    jt3 wrote:
    > "Paul" <> wrote in message news:emu8i2$kk3$...
    >> jt3 wrote:
    >>> Yes, I've been using the GigaByte monitoring utility, about which I have

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> nuisance of having to flip the switch or unplug, to clear the latch.
    >>
    >>> I'll post back to the thread when I've got any results worth reporting.
    >>>
    >>> Thank you very much for your time and efforts,
    >>>
    >>> Joe
    >>>

    >> What most people don't think about, is it is a miracle that this stuff
    >> works in the first place. That is why I'm not surprised when a computer
    >> works flaky. The flakiness in computers only really started to disappear,
    >> once good design methods, spread from engineer to engineer. There was
    >> a time, when some companies simply didn't understand how to build stuff.
    >> Now, companies can make "Xerox copies" of reference designs, and know
    >> very little of what they're building. Kinda useful in the video
    >> card industry. And to a much lesser extent with motherboards.
    >>
    >> Paul

    >
    > Should you still be monitoring this thread, I'm posting back, not because I
    > have any noteworthy info, but more, the absence of it :)
    > The machine has been working just fine ever since, with virtually no hiccups
    > of any sort. Works on either power supply, seemingly just fine. The only
    > questionable occurrence has been today when the GigaByte monitor wouldn't
    > give a reasonable reading--giving trash like CPU temp=96 deg C, fan speed
    > 46,000 rpm, etc. When I would try to check any further, XP would tell me
    > that it had to close it down, and would I like to send a message to MS? I
    > love that one.
    > Anyhow, rebooting the machine seemed to fix that, though it is a puzzle,
    > since I would presume it reads it through their version of the Award BIOS,
    > and that seems passing strange, especially since the app was trying to
    > report battery voltage as well (that was about 46,000 volts, as well!) which
    > was not normal, as well as not reporting a number of the normal parameters.
    > Still, nothing to be especially worried about, at least, not yet!
    >
    > Joe
    >


    Just don't shake the machine or look at it sideways :)

    Must be the good karma that makes it behave.

    As for the flaky readout, the problem could be something
    to do with RAM. The other day, I had a game that started reporting
    inconsistencies in some data structure it was using, and a reboot
    fixed it. None of my machines have ECC RAM, so I'll never know
    whether the problem could have been RAM or not.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Feb 14, 2007
    #13
  14. jt3

    jt3 Guest

    Yes, I've kicked myself repeatedly that I didn't get ECC RAM when I put this
    thing together. It would certainly have made sorting through all this mess
    a lot simpler. Though, with the motherboard not handling the memory
    properly, as it was doing at the last before the RMA and repair, it might
    have been less confidence inspiring than I thought.
    But, as you say, don't give the machine any dirty looks, it might take
    offense :)

    Thanks for all your input,
    Joe

    "Paul" <> wrote in message news:equrqq$q0v$...
    > jt3 wrote:
    > > "Paul" <> wrote in message

    news:emu8i2$kk3$...
    > >> jt3 wrote:
    > >>> Yes, I've been using the GigaByte monitoring utility, about which I

    have
    > >
    > > <snip>
    > >
    > >> nuisance of having to flip the switch or unplug, to clear the latch.
    > >>
    > >>> I'll post back to the thread when I've got any results worth

    reporting.
    > >>>
    > >>> Thank you very much for your time and efforts,
    > >>>
    > >>> Joe
    > >>>
    > >> What most people don't think about, is it is a miracle that this stuff
    > >> works in the first place. That is why I'm not surprised when a computer
    > >> works flaky. The flakiness in computers only really started to

    disappear,
    > >> once good design methods, spread from engineer to engineer. There was
    > >> a time, when some companies simply didn't understand how to build

    stuff.
    > >> Now, companies can make "Xerox copies" of reference designs, and know
    > >> very little of what they're building. Kinda useful in the video
    > >> card industry. And to a much lesser extent with motherboards.
    > >>
    > >> Paul

    > >
    > > Should you still be monitoring this thread, I'm posting back, not

    because I
    > > have any noteworthy info, but more, the absence of it :)
    > > The machine has been working just fine ever since, with virtually no

    hiccups
    > > of any sort. Works on either power supply, seemingly just fine. The

    only
    > > questionable occurrence has been today when the GigaByte monitor

    wouldn't
    > > give a reasonable reading--giving trash like CPU temp=96 deg C, fan

    speed
    > > 46,000 rpm, etc. When I would try to check any further, XP would tell

    me
    > > that it had to close it down, and would I like to send a message to MS?

    I
    > > love that one.
    > > Anyhow, rebooting the machine seemed to fix that, though it is a puzzle,
    > > since I would presume it reads it through their version of the Award

    BIOS,
    > > and that seems passing strange, especially since the app was trying to
    > > report battery voltage as well (that was about 46,000 volts, as well!)

    which
    > > was not normal, as well as not reporting a number of the normal

    parameters.
    > > Still, nothing to be especially worried about, at least, not yet!
    > >
    > > Joe
    > >

    >
    > Just don't shake the machine or look at it sideways :)
    >
    > Must be the good karma that makes it behave.
    >
    > As for the flaky readout, the problem could be something
    > to do with RAM. The other day, I had a game that started reporting
    > inconsistencies in some data structure it was using, and a reboot
    > fixed it. None of my machines have ECC RAM, so I'll never know
    > whether the problem could have been RAM or not.
    >
    > Paul
     
    jt3, Feb 14, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Craig Matchan
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    514
    Sick Willie
    Feb 14, 2004
  2. milleron

    What's the PWR_FAN header for?

    milleron, Jul 29, 2005, in forum: Asus
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    996
    Jaimie Vandenbergh
    Aug 3, 2005
  3. Gordon Scott
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    439
  4. don

    GA-K8NSpro

    don, Nov 21, 2004, in forum: Gigabyte
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    405
  5. David Wilts

    GA-K8NSPro (754) an SATA issues

    David Wilts, Dec 10, 2004, in forum: Gigabyte
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    330
    David Wilts
    Dec 10, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page